Connect with us

Business

US vaccine advisers end decades-long recommendation for all babies to get hepatitis B shot at birth

Published

on



A federal vaccine advisory committee voted on Friday to end the longstanding recommendation that all U.S. babies get the hepatitis B vaccine on the day they’re born.

A loud chorus of medical and public health leaders decried the actions of the panel, whose current members were all appointed by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a leading anti-vaccine activist before this year becoming the nation’s top health official.

“This is the group that can’t shoot straight,” said Dr. William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University vaccine expert who for decades has been involved with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and its workgroups.

Several medical societies and state health departments said they would continue to recommend them. While people may have to check their policies, the trade group AHIP, formerly known as America’s Health Insurance Plans, said its members still will cover the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine.

For decades, the government has advised that all babies be vaccinated against the liver infection right after birth. The shots are widely considered to be a public health success for preventing thousands of illnesses.

But Kennedy’s advisory committee decided to recommend the birth dose only for babies whose mothers test positive, and in cases where the mom wasn’t tested.

For other babies, it will be up to the parents and their doctors to decide if a birth dose is appropriate. The committee voted 8-3 to suggest that when a family elects to wait, then the vaccination series should begin when the child is 2 months old.

President Donald Trump posted a message late Friday calling the vote a “very good decision.”

The acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Jim O’Neill, is expected to decide later whether to accept the committee’s recommendation.

The decision marks a return to a health strategy abandoned more than three decades ago

Asked why the newly-appointed committee moved quickly to reexamine the recommendation, committee member Vicky Pebsworth on Thursday cited “pressure from stakeholder groups,” without naming them.

Committee members said the risk of infection for most babies is very low and that earlier research that found the shots were safe for infants was inadequate.

They also worried that in many cases, doctors and nurses don’t have full conversations with parents about the pros and cons of the birth-dose vaccination.

The committee members voiced interest in hearing the input from public health and medical professionals, but chose to ignore the experts’ repeated pleas to leave the recommendations alone.

The committee gives advice to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how approved vaccines should be used. CDC directors almost always adopted the committee’s recommendations, which were widely heeded by doctors and guide vaccination programs. But the agency currently has no director, leaving acting director O’Neill to decide.

In June, Kennedy fired the entire 17-member panel earlier this year and replaced it with a group that includes several anti-vaccine voices.

Hepatitis B and delaying birth doses

Hepatitis B is a serious liver infection that, for most people, lasts less than six months. But for some, especially infants and children, it can become a long-lasting problem that can lead to liver failure, liver cancer and scarring called cirrhosis.

In adults, the virus is spread through sex or through sharing needles during injection drug use. But it can also be passed from an infected mother to a baby.

In 1991, the committee recommended an initial dose of hepatitis B vaccine at birth. Experts say quick immunization is crucial to prevent infection from taking root. And, indeed, cases in children have plummeted.

Still, several members of Kennedy’s committee voiced discomfort with vaccinating all newborns. They argued that past safety studies of the vaccine in newborns were limited and it’s possible that larger, long-term studies could uncover a problem with the birth dose.

But two members said they saw no documented evidence of harm from the birth doses and suggested concern was based on speculation.

Three panel members asked about the scientific basis for saying that the first dose could be delayed for two months for many babies.

“This is unconscionable,” said committee member Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, who repeatedly voiced opposition to the proposal during the sometimes-heated two-day meeting.

The committee’s chair, Dr. Kirk Milhoan, said two months was chosen as a point where infants had matured beyond the neonatal stage. Hibbeln countered that there was no data presented that two months is an appropriate cut-off.

Dr. Cody Meissner also questioned a second proposal — which passed 6-4 — that said parents consider talking to pediatricians about blood tests meant to measure whether hep B shots have created protective antibodies.

Such testing is not standard pediatric practice after vaccination. Proponents said it could be a new way to see if fewer shots are adequate.

A CDC hepatitis expert, Adam Langer, said results could vary from child to child and would be an erratic way to assess if fewer doses work. He also noted there’s no good evidence that three shots pose harm to kids.

Meissner attacked the proposal, saying the language “is kind of making things up.”

Health experts say this could ‘make America sicker’

Health experts have noted Kennedy’s hand-picked committee is focused on the pros and cons of shots for the individual getting vaccinated, and has turned away from seeing vaccinations as a way to stop the spread of preventable diseases among the public.

The second proposal “is right at the center of this paradox,” said committee member Dr. Robert Malone.

Some observers criticized the meeting, noting recent changes in how they are conducted. CDC scientists no longer present vaccine safety and effectiveness data to the committee. Instead, people who have been prominent voices in anti-vaccine circles were given those slots.

The committee “is no longer a legitimate scientific body,” said Elizabeth Jacobs, a member of Defend Public Health, an advocacy group of researchers and others that has opposed Trump administration health policies. She described the meeting this week as “an epidemiological crime scene.”

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, a liver doctor who chairs the Senate health committee, called the committee’s vote on the hepatitis B vaccine “a mistake.”

“This makes America sicker,” he said, in a post on social media.

The committee heard a 90-minute presentation from Aaron Siri, a lawyer who has worked with Kennedy on vaccine litigation. He ended by saying that he believes there should no ACIP vaccine recommendations at all.

In a lengthy response, Meissner said, “What you have said is a terrible, terrible distortion of all the facts.” He ended by saying Siri should not have been invited.

The meeting’s organizers said they invited Siri as well as a few vaccine researchers — who have been vocal defenders of immunizations — to discuss the vaccine schedule. They named two: Dr. Peter Hotez, who said he declined, and Dr. Paul Offit, who said he didn’t remember being asked but would have declined anyway.

Hotez, of the Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, declined to present before the group “because ACIP appears to have shifted its mission away from science and evidence-based medicine,” he said in an email to The Associated Press.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Procurement execs often don’t understand the value of good design, experts say

Published

on



Behind every intricately designed hotel or restaurant is a symbiotic collaboration between designer and maker.

But in reality, firms want to build more with less—and even though visions are created by designers, they don’t always get to see them to fruition. Instead, intermediaries may be placed in charge of procurements and overseeing the financial costs of executing designs.

“The process is not often as linear as we [designers] would like it to be, and at times we even get slightly cut out, and something comes out on the other side that wasn’t really what we were expecting,” said Tina Norden, a partner and principal at design firm Conran and Partners, at the Fortune Brainstorm Design forum in Macau on Dec. 2.

“To have a better quality product, communication is very much needed,” added Daisuke Hironaka, the CEO of Stellar Works, a furniture company based in Shanghai. 

Yet those tasked with procurement are often “money people” who may not value good design—instead forsaking it to cut costs. More education on the business value of quality design is needed, Norden argued.

When one builds something, she said, there are both capital investment and a lifecycle cost. “If you’re spending a bit more money on good quality furniture, flooring, whatever it might be, arguably, it should last a lot longer, and so it’s much better value.”

Investing in well-designed products is also better for the environment, Norden added, as they don’t have to be replaced as quickly.

Attempts to cut costs may also backfire in the long run, said Hironaka, as business owners may have to foot higher maintenance bills if products are of poor design and make.

AI in interior and furniture design

Though designers have largely been slow adopters of AI, some luminaries like Daisuke are attempting to integrate it into their team’s workflow.

AI can help accelerate the process of designing bespoke furniture, Daisuke explained, especially for large-scale projects like hotels. 

A team may take a month to 45 days to create drawings for 200 pieces of custom-made furniture, the designer said, but AI can speed up this process. “We designed a lot in the past, and if AI can use these archives, study [them] and help to do the engineering, that makes it more helpful for designers.” 

Yet designers can rest easy as AI won’t ever be able to replace the human touch they bring, Norden said. 

“There is something about the human touch, and about understanding how we like to use our spaces, how we enjoy space, how we perceive spaces, that will always be there—but AI should be something that can assist us [in] getting to that point quicker.”

She added that creatives can instead view AI as a tool for tasks that are time-consuming but “don’t need ultimate creativity,” like researching and three-dimensionalizing designs.

“As designers, we like to procrastinate and think about things for a very long time to get them just right, [but] we can get some help in doing things faster.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Binance has been proudly nomadic for years. A new announcement suggests it’s chosen an HQ

Published

on



For years, Binance has dodged questions about where it plans to establish a corporate headquarters. On Monday, the world’s largest crypto exchange made an announcement that indicates it has chosen a location: Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.

In its announcement, Binance reported that it has secured three global financial licenses within Abu Dhabi Global Market, a special economic zone inside the Emirati city. The licenses regulate three different prongs of the exchange’s business: its exchange, clearinghouse, and broker dealer services. The three regulated entities are named Nest Exchange Limited, Nest Clearing and Custody Limited, and Nest Trading Limited, respectively.

Richard Teng, the co-CEO of Binance, declined to say whether Abu Dhabi is now Binance’s global headquarters. “But for all intents and purposes, if you look at the regulatory sphere, I think the global regulators are more concerned of where we are regulated on a global basis,” he said, adding that Abu Dhabi Global Market is where his crypto exchange’s “global platform” will be governed.

A company spokesperson declined to add more to Teng’s comments, but did not deny Fortune’s assertion that Binance appears to have chosen Abu Dhabai as its headquarters.

Corporate governance

The Abu Dhabi announcement suggests that Binance, which has for years taken pride in branding itself as a company with no fixed location, is bowing to the practical considerations that go with being a major financial firm—and the corporate governance obligations that entails.

When Changpeng Zhao, the cofounder and former CEO of Binance, launched the company in 2017, he initially established the exchange in Hong Kong. But, weeks after he registered Binance in the city, China banned cryptocurrency trading, and Zhao moved his nascent trading platform. Binance has since been itinerant. “Wherever I sit is going to be the Binance office,” Zhao said in 2020.

The location of a company’s headquarters impacts its tax obligations and what regulations it needs to follow. In 2023, after Binance reached a landmark $4.3 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, Zhao stepped down as CEO and pleaded guilty to failing to implement an effective anti-money laundering program.

Teng took over and promised to implement the corporate structures—like a board of directors—that are the norm for companies of Binance’s size. Teng, who now shares the CEO role with the newly appointed Yi He, oversaw the appointment of Binance’s first board in April 2024. And he’s repeatedly telegraphed that his crypto exchange is focused on regulatory compliance.

Binance already has a strong footprint in the Emirates. It has a crypto license in Dubai, received a $2 billion investment from an Emirati venture fund in March, and, that same month, said it employed 1,000 employees in the country. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Leaders in Congress outperform rank-and-file lawmakers on stock trades by up to 47% a year

Published

on



Stocks held by members of Congress have been beating the S&P 500 lately, but there’s a subset of lawmakers who crush their peers: leadership.

According to a recent working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, congressional leaders outperform back benchers by up to 47% a year.

Shang-Jin Wei from Columbia University and Columbia Business School along with Yifan Zhou from Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University looked at lawmakers who ascended to leadership posts, such as Speaker of the House as well as House and Senate floor leaders, whips, and conference/caucus chairs.

Between 1995 and 2021, there were 20 such leaders who made stock trades before and after rising to their posts. Wei and Zhou observed that lawmakers underperformed benchmarks before becoming leaders, then everything suddenly changed.

“Importantly, whilst we observe a huge improvement in leaders’ trading performance as they ascend to leadership roles, the matched ‘regular’ members’ stock trading performance does not improve much,” they wrote.

Leadership’s stock market edge stems in part from their ability to set the regulatory or legislation agenda, such as deciding if and when a particular bill will be put to a vote. Setting the agenda also gives leaders advanced knowledge of when certain actions will take place.

In fact, Wei and Zhou found that leaders demonstrate much better returns on stock trades that are made when their party controls their chamber.

In addition, being a leader also increases access to non-public information. The researchers said that while companies are reluctant to share such insider knowledge, they may prioritize revealing it to leaders over rank-and-file lawmakers.

Leaders earn higher returns on companies that contribute to their campaigns or are headquartered in their states, which Wei and Zhou said could be attributable to “privileged access to firm-specific information.”

The upper echelon also influences how other members of Congress vote, and the paper found that a leader’s party is much more likely to vote for bills that help firms whose stocks the leader held, or vote against bills that harmed them. And stocks owned by leadership tend to see increases in federal contract awards, especially sole-source contracts, over the following one to two years.

“These results suggest that congressional leaders may not only trade on privileged knowledge, but also shape policy outcomes to enrich themselves,” Wei and Zhou wrote.

Stock trades by congressional leaders are even predictive, forecasting higher occurrences of positive or negative corporate news over the following year, they added. In particular, stock sales predict the number of hearings and regulatory actions over the coming year, though purchases don’t.

Investors have long suspected that Washington has a special advantage on Wall Street. That’s given rise to more ETFs with political themes, including funds that track portfolios belonging to Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

And Paul Pelosi, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, even has a cult following among some investors who mimic his stock moves.

Congress has tried to crack down on members’ stock holdings. The STOCK Act of 2012 requires more timely disclosures, but some lawmakers want to ban trading completely.

A bipartisan group of House members is pushing legislation that would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, dependent children, and trustees from trading individual stocks, commodities, or futures.

And this past week, a discharge petition was put forth that would force a vote in the House if it gets enough signatures.

“If leadership wants to put forward a bill that would actually do that and end the corruption, we’re all for it,” said Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., on social media on Tuesday. “But we’re tired of the partisan games. This is the most bipartisan bipartisan thing in U.S. history, and it’s time that the House of Representatives listens to the American people.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.